Running Scared
Labels: Arts & Media, Crime & Justice, Health & Science, Technology
By Anne Morse|Published Date: October 30, 2009

You have to wonder, if the case against Intelligent Design is so strong, why Darwinists prefer shutting down the IDers to debating them. The Discovery Institute's Anika Smith says the Shepherd Project Ministries website was targeted by hackers "in what appears to be a coordinated attempt to suppress information about an upcoming conference on Darwin and intelligent design in Colorado."

Sheperd Project Ministries' executive director Craig Smith says, "It’s stunning to me how threatened they seem to be about the conversation that is taking place. It’s not a matter of, 'I disagree with the content' or 'I disagree with the conclusion,' it’s 'I disagree that the conversation should be allowed.'"

Smith calls the cyber attack a high-tech form of book-burning. It's an apt analogy. Darwinists are using tactics beloved by Nazis, facists, socialists, and other thoughtful, open-minded thugs folks.
 

8 Comments

Feed

  1. Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-11-04 01:02:29

    Yeah. In Anne's defense, the sentence is a little ambiguous. Like "People are crazy" - not *all* people, obviously. But, as agreed, over-generalized. Also, (thinking about it) I don't think Darwinists are 'running scared' (irregardless who this particular case was), just like I don't think Nazi book burners were 'running scared'. IF this was by Darwinists, it would likely be more analogous to 'oppression'/'suppression' and silencing dissent, not out of fear, but in order to maintain an iron grip on the power they enjoy. Thoughts?

  2. Posted by Ben W on 2009-11-03 21:40:52

    Agreed, Steve. In this country, there are a bunch of mostly polarized groups, Christians vs. atheists, evolutionists vs. creationists, Democrats vs. Republicans. Every one of these groups gets attacked on blogs and by hackers (presumably by the opposing side), but I don't think that means anyone is "running scared". /// That's why I object to implying that a (very large) group of people are thugs.. it'd be like saying "Christians are adulterous hypocrites" based on the actions of a few bad congressmen.

  3. Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-11-02 15:10:28

    Hmmm. I lost a comment on this. I try again. // Ben (W), I agree with your explanation of how Darwinism is usually defined (so, I see the def'n as fuzzy). I think the language is strong here (absent proof). I would say the most probable cause was anti-IDers, and so *probably* Darwinists, given that, in my experience, if they had to choose, Creationists would jump on the ID boat. I do think Anne's comment was over-generalizing. It wouldn't bother me though if Darwinists were the ones shown to be doing this (which I think probable, but I don't really have any emotional investment). It also would and wouldn't bother me if the word "Christians" was substituted for "Darwinists". It would bother me that anyone who claims to be a Christian was using those tactics. It wouldn't bother me if, showing they were, that they were called out for it and rightfully rebuked. But probably better would be a qualifier like "Some Christians" or "Some Darwinists" (again, given the evidence). Still, I think it's silly that the most probable cause is almost *always* rejected because there are conceivable alternatives (as though that were a counter-argument). But, it is dangerous to accept truth-claim uncritically.

  4. Posted by Benjamin Ady on 2009-10-31 00:38:49

    wow--a sort of instantaneous invocation of Godwin's Law. Kewl. =) Seems like a bit of a leap to me to assume that the hackers had particular opinions about particular subjects. Maybe the guy or gal who put together the attack was angry at Shepherd Project Ministries et. al. because of something completely unrelated. Maybe their ex boyfriend or girlfriend recently got hired there. I mean there are myriad possible motivations.

  5. Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-30 23:37:23

    Eh, not exactly, but "Darwinism" doesn't typically refer to the evolutionary theory as much as it does evolution + materialism + big bang + abiogenesis, often with some postmodernism thrown in for good measure. You'll see all/any of these attacked as "Darwinism" in articles and blogs. So it has something to do with evolution and/or atheism, generally. // I can't for the life of me see any actual evidence that "Darwinists" even perpetrated the crime. How do you know it wasn't strident young-earthers or Muslim creationists? Or perhaps hackers out for some jollies? // And it wouldn't bother you, Steve, to see that statement reworded as "Christians are using tactics beloved by Nazis, facists, socialists, and other thoughtful, open-minded (thugs) folks"? It seems kinda generalizing to me.

  6. Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-30 13:31:32

    Ben, I think it's fair to brush anyone with the "Nazi tactic" (or something similar) who 'burns books' (digitally or analogically). Are you implying though that all Darwinists are atheists?

  7. Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-30 11:45:32

    Ugh, Anne, really? So is it fair to paint Christians with the "Nazi tactic" brush every time an atheist site is attacked by hackers?

  8. Posted by Billy Atwell on 2009-10-30 11:33:35

    Anne, I completely agree. I find that the loudest mouths (those who'd rather scream over you than debate you) are the ones with the least to say. I believe in the evolution of ideas--what I mean is, through freedom of speech we have the opportunity to bring up ideas and if they are solid and founded on truth, then they will survive the strength test and be believed by others. But if your argument is stuck in the mud and sinking quickly, then you're be left fighting for the weaker theory. Truth is not dependent on our believing it, but we do have the capacity, through reason and revelation, to believe what is true and reject what is false. Christianity is so powerful and prominent because since the death of Christ people have flocked to the truth this religion holds. Chuck Colson has written several times about how the apostles would never have followed Jesus after his death if the resurrection wasn't real. The whole idea of Jesus as the Son of God would have dwindled out of existence. The tactics of Darwinists, as you have described, are the desperate attempts of people who don't believe that their own theory can withstand and be the survival of the fittest.

Add Comment



Click to get a new image.